Authors United, allies, demand government intervention

[Fbone]

KU contains 1,035,421 items as of this moment. Apparently, most authors decided to stay in KU after the recent changes.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Fbone

KU contains 1,035,421 items as of this moment. Apparently, most authors decided to stay in KU after the recent changes.

Yow! 100K more in a month?!

So much for the handwringing over the half cent a "page" payout.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Yow! 100K more in a month?!

So much for the handwringing over the half cent a "page" payout.

Might still have happened. 100k scammers out, 200K longer books in. Or any other numbers.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Might still have happened. 100k scammers out, 200K longer books in. Or any other numbers.

Oh, I doubt scammers would leave.
Where would they go?
But 100K longer reads is going to add value to KU.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by murg

The BPHs are also not fully supporting the other subscription services out there. In fact, as we've just learned from Scribd's reduction in content, the BPHs are demanding close to retail for each loan, which makes this an unviable market.

I don't know what big publishers get, but Scribd give indies 60% of the retail price for every loan: http://blog.smashwords.com/2013/12/s...agreement.html

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Oh, I doubt scammers would leave.
Where would they go?
But 100K longer reads is going to add value to KU.

You are probably right about not leaving - leaving will cut the revenue by 100% from borrows. Then I was thinking that the reduction of scribd's catalogue followed by big jump in KU might not be a coincidence. If Amazon was smart, they should have snatched every single one up that fell out of scribd's grace. Offer a small bonus for switching, and if there is enough popular books coming, it will eventually drag the disgruntled scribd users over to KU.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

You are probably right about not leaving - leaving will cut the revenue by 100% from borrows. Then I was thinking that the reduction of scribd's catalogue followed by big jump in KU might not be a coincidence. If Amazon was smart, they should have snatched every single one up that fell out of scribd's grace. Offer a small bonus for switching, and if there is enough popular books coming, it will eventually drag the disgruntled scribd users over to KU.

Yes, they could.
They could offer a three or six month subscription at a discount to switchers.
But I'm sure the in-house lawyers would frown.
By all indications (and a recent survey) KU already commands 90% of the still-small subscription market. Aggressively targetting specific competitors is what got Microsoft in trouble.

Amazon is very careful there.
They rarely if ever discuss or attack competitors. They'll match them or undercut them but they don't mention them. So far, in ebooks, they seem happy enough to quietly outlast the competition.

Safer, politically.

[darryl]

Amazon is playing the long game and has an excellent strategic plan which I don't see it jeopardising, particularly not for the sake of a few customers in a subscription service which is curently a very small share of their operations. There is no real reason for it to try to attract customers from Scribd. At the moment KU seems to be the only subscription service that has a viable business model. Whilst our Jurassic cartel of large publishers might love it for the time it lasts, any subscription service paying for its content on the basis of any significant percentage of the retail price of a book per "borrow" is doomed to failure. But all of the large players but Amazon are effectively hostages to the Cartel, and I simply can't see the Cartel agreeing to supply books to subscription services at a price which would make them viable. And without any content from the Cartel, it is difficult to see how other subscription services could compete with KU.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by darryl

I've just had a brief look at the 24 page "position paper". I don't propose to waste any more of my time on it, and i imagine the DOJ will probably feel the same way. It demonstrates the same level of intellectual rigour and respect for the truth as the previous pathetic efforts of this group. I am amazed that a group of successful writers is unable to come up with anything better. Perhaps some fiction writers sometimes get so caught up in worlds of their own creation that they forget that their omnipotence in their own fictional worlds does not extend to the real world, in which others must be persuaded by arguments based on at least some reasonable level of logic and fact.

ARG! Congress, books are so important (as opposed to energy, Iran getting nukes, etc.) that you must make sure your constituents pay more so our industry is healthy.

ARG! Amazon is deciding which books are offered, as opposed to BHP, which have a long history of exclusivity. Instead of Amazon, I should have to hire an agent, who has to shop my book to BHP, and they can decide.

ARG! Please help us-people are choosing to watch movies instead of read books!

ARG! Amazon should act objectively, like Fox News.

ARG! Target, Walmart and Apple, charitable organizations, are being hurt by Amazon.

ARG! Apple, who charges a ridiculous price for its phones, such that people are mugged and even killed for their iPhone, should be ignored, and you were big meanies to go after them, and us, in the first place.

ARG! You have to decide which format endures-just like you did with Betamax and VCR. Like Betamax, ours is better, and should be declared the winner.

Now, there is one issue that could be a problem. If Amazon is using the price of books as a loss leader, with the intent of driving competitors out of business, it is a violation. But, is Amazon doing that, or offering books as a loss leader to get people "in the store" to buy other things, like grocery stores and paper towels? Unfortunately, Target and Walmart have the same prices on books as Amazon, for the same reason. Yes, Walmart already killed Mom and Pop stores--where was the Justice Department? Did it decide the greater good of making sure all that crap Walmart sells was available to Farmer John was more important that making sure Mom and Pop remained in business and were able to sell what they decided Farmer John should buy?

DOJ has bigger fish to fry-Banks, voting rights, etc. This is laughable. But very aspirational. It reads like a high school valedictorian speech.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Now, there is one issue that could be a problem. If Amazon is using the price of books as a loss leader, with the intent of driving competitors out of business, it is a violation. But, is Amazon doing that, or offering books as a loss leader to get people "in the store" to buy other things, like grocery stores and paper towels?

.

During the round up to the conspiracy trial, the DOJ looked at Amazon's ebook business and reported that Amazon does not now and never did lose money selling ebooks.

Despite the urban legend that pops up around here from time to time, Amazon never discounted all ebooks below cost. All they did was run temporary sales on select titles. They ran a lot of sales but they were limited and temporary.

Anybody around here in the pre-conspiracy days can attest that it was possible to shop around and find similar or even lower prices on the ebooks that weren't on sale.

The verdict here was that Amazon wasn't always the cheapest on every single book but that if you only shopped at Amazon your total cost would be lower than *only* shopping anyplace else. *That* plus their superior customer service and superior catalog is how Amazon rose to the top of the heap.

All perfectly legal then and still legal now, whiners notwithstanding

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

...

Anybody around here in the pre-conspiracy days can attest that it was possible to shop around and find similar or even lower prices on the ebooks that weren't on sale.

The verdict here was that Amazon wasn't always the cheapest on every single book but that if you only shopped at Amazon your total cost would be lower than *only* shopping anyplace else. *That* plus their superior customer service and superior catalog is how Amazon rose to the top of the heap.

All perfectly legal then and still legal now, whiners notwithstanding

Kobo and Fictionwise were quite often cheaper when I used a coupon. Now I can't use coupons on the big publishers, and of course the conspiracy put Fictionwise out of business.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

If Amazon is using the price of books as a loss leader, with the intent of driving competitors out of business, it is a violation.

In the 1940's and 1950's it would have been, regardless of the impossible-to-confirm intent. Lately, small businesses are protected in Europe but not in the US.

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

But, is Amazon doing that, or offering books as a loss leader to get people "in the store" to buy other things, like grocery stores and paper towels?

Are they still doing it? I thought big publishers negotiated deals to sell their titles, both paper and eBook, to Amazon, at lower-than-wholesaler prices in return for limits on discounting.

Back when Amazon did commonly sell bestsellers at a loss, I wouldn't be surprised if half the Amazon executives participating in the decisions thought driving general merchandise sales was the bigger plus, and the other half thought putting small competitors out of business was more beneficial. But I don't see how we can peer into minds to know what people are really thinking.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

Now I can't use coupons on the big publishers, and of course the conspiracy put Fictionwise out of business.

Of course? How could they have competed, for long, with Amazon's greater financial strength when it comes to the ability to price below cost?

I would consider that Fictionwise made a big acquisition shortly before the great recession kicked in:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/1/prweb606601.htm

Most likely, there were multiple causes for Fictionwise's decline and fall. Yesterday's A&P collapse, widely blamed on their 2007 purchase of Pathmark, reminded me of the acquisition factor.

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Of course? How could they have competed, for long, with Amazon's greater financial strength when it comes to the ability to price below cost?

I would consider that Fictionwise made a big acquisition shortly before the great recession kicked in:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/1/prweb606601.htm

Most likely, there were multiple causes for Fictionwise's decline and fall. Yesterday's A&P collapse, widely blamed on their 2007 purchase of Pathmark, reminded me of the acquisition factor.

From what I remember when the big publishers went to agency, they left the smaller stores without a contract for quite a while. I remember Fictionwise selling Random House books but no other big publishers. It's hard to stay in business without having the products to sell.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

From what I remember when the big publishers went to agency, they left the smaller stores without a contract for quite a while. I remember Fictionwise selling Random House books but no other big publishers. It's hard to stay in business without having the products to sell.

You remember correctly:

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b....html#comments

Livolsi has been critical of how the switch to the agency pricing model was implemented from the beginning and voiced complaints that it was organized strictly to benefit the big retail players and “devastated,” independent e-book sellers. He pointed to the lingering impact of the switch to agency pricing in 2010, a switch he said severely impacted indie e-book retailers because it removed Big Six titles—the switch was sudden and included major changes in metadata and delivery that severely affected e-book distributors—from his inventory. Indeed LiVolsi said he lost access to thousands of titles, some for more than a year, because of the Agency Model switch, and in the process he said, “we lost 70% of our customers.”

LiVolsi said Books on Board was “collateral damage in the publishers' war against Amazon,” and said, “it has taken us a year to get back some of the agency titles. This is something that only affected indie retailers.” Although Agency Pricing has been cited by publishers as way to help indie e-book retailers, LiVolsi called it “a misguided move.” Indeed LiVolsi said at the time of the agency model switch, Books on Board was the #3 e-book retailer behind Amazon and B&N and ahead of Kobo. After losing thousands of titles from his catalog due to the switch, he said, “we had a very broad selection of fiction and nonfiction titles and we lost them all. I was left with mostly romance titles. I lost customers over the next year and never really got them back. We basically have had to start over. Publishers just didn’t think about how this would affect distribution,” he said.

Diesel had the same problem.

The reports I saw back in the day were that they had trouble even getting the BPHs to start negotiating.